Clockify MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return scope ('from all users') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' parameter, or rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and scope. The first sentence states the core function, and the second clarifies the return scope. No wasted words or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and output format details. The schema handles parameters well, but overall completeness is minimal viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and resource 'time entries for a specific project', specifying it returns entries from all users. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_user_time_entries' (user-specific) and 'search_time_entries' (general search).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific project' and 'from all users', which helps differentiate from user-focused alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives like 'find_user_time_entries' for user-specific queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.